I think we neglected our duty in not mentioned to you the second restraint of an ID test, aside from prediction. ID must be a far better explanation of whatever phenomena it proports to explain than a corresponding natural phenomena that might be possible-to-likely in the evolutionary paradigm, but, like the little green men of ID, has yet to be observed in the flesh.
Neglecting your duty or moving the goal posts? You guys complain over and over again that there are no tests for ID. I give some, and this is not the first time I've done it, and you respond by adding wholly subjective requirements. How do you define "better explanation"? To one who is locked into closed-minded doctriniare naturalism ANY naturalistic explanation, no matter how absurd, will always seem better than ANY creationist explanation, no matter how rational. I think you have neglected your duty as well. You guys have a problem. I am not sure if it is a heart or a head problem, because I don't know enough about you, but you seem smart enough, in an 'inside the box' sort of way.
I think that you will post the same junk on the next trhead about 'there are no testable predictions for ID'. If you do, expect me to call you on it. Not because I am out to get you, though, I just want you to see the truth. It is so easy to see when the mind is free.
You think you have neglected your duty? So do I, you have neglected your duty to follow the facts wherever they takes you, even if it is Jesus Christ.